Legalize It?

My friend Adele and I are working on the overdue next step of our "Starting with Weakness" series. It will deal with acknowledgment and admiration of our detractors and those who disagree with us.

Meanwhile, Adele wrote a post on legalizing marijuana - click here!

She writes:
i do not have a problem with people smoking marijuana. They are much nicer being stoned than many belligerent alcohol induced drunkards! To some, i am already a heretic for being queer and calling myself a Christian. So, why not add fuel to the fire, eh?! If i am already on my way to hell, i figure anything else must be icing on the cake!

There's a great, 2-minute YouTube video on the history of marijuana linked through Adele's post. It's worth a watch!

To be perfectly honest, I agree with her (and I guess, shockingly, with Glenn Beck). I like my whiskey, but I've seen folks do a lot more damage to themselves and others with alcohol than with weed. And I'm not innocent or ignorant - I went to college... I ate the brownies...

What really kills me is how schools are underfunded, but we spend countless millions trying to stop people from smoking the chronic and eating too many Doritos...

12 comments:

A. D. Hunt said...

tax that sh*t and build some trains is what I say!

Ken said...

Even if smoking pot is sinful and immoral, it should still be legal. Turning potheads into criminals causes mor problems for society than making it legal and regulating it. It is easier for kids to get pot than alcohol. If pot were legal that would not be true. Let's protect the children and legalize it.

Peter said...

"Turning potheads into criminals causes more problems for society than making it legal and regulating it." Right there with you Ken. Love the "for the children" exhortation, too.

"You don't... HATE... CHILDREN... DO YOU??"

But it's true. Tony, word, "tax that shit!"

Existential Punk said...

Peter,

I LOVE that picture of Jesus and am going to steal it from you! ;) Where did you find it?

Adele

Al said...

Just read an inspiring book about addictions (yes, I said inspiring!) by Canadian doctor Dr. Gabor Maté who has worked with hard-core addicts in Vancouver for a number of years. (http://www.drgabormate.com/ghosts.php)
His take is that the 'war on drugs' is absolutely the wrong thing to do--even regarding harder drugs than weed.
For starters, the 'war on drugs' isn't working, it does nothing for the people who find themselves in such need that they are self-medicating, and yes, there are better places to spend all that money!
I'm not sure that I would be encouraging people to smoke, but legalizing it isn't the big boogey man we might think it is. But then again, I'm Canadian, and from British Columbia, and you can smell that unique 'essence' everywhere around here.

Peter said...

Adele - GOOGLE IMAGES: 'Jesus' and 'weed.'

Al, I agree. It's reckless to encourage the use of marijuana. But allowing it? I'm with you. Sounds like a really interesting book.

I thought it was interesting that a lot of headlines were written about Obama's new Drug Czar purposefully avoiding use the term "War on Drugs" in his discussion of focus and policy.

As with so many other social issues, "war" terminology has a polarizing, militarizing, "us-vs-them" effect. Even when the "them" is our own children.

I feel the same way about "crusade" language for evangelism.

Chris said...

I have no opinion on this matter, so I can't opine one way or the other! But I'm curious what the arguments against legalizing it are.

I have mixed feelings about the Jesus image you've used. The sacred heart of Jesus is... pot? Wondering how Catholics feel about this. I'm not much for using other people's devotional images in this way. (Unless you're Catholic yourself...)

There was a good article in the Christian Science Monitor recently about marijuana in California legalized for medical reasons. Seems like a reasonable program to me.

Peace to you today, Peter.

Chris

Peter said...

Hey Chris,
Hmmm... it's an interesting discussion: what is appropriate or respectful in regards to religious imagery? Personally, I think all of our attempts to render God or Christ in visual forms are somewhat impious - suggesting we know, understand, or have any clue as to what Jesus really looked like. Or how his character would be revealed today.

While certainly not "reverent," I don't think pot-Jesus is any MORE disrespectful than...
(google these at Google Images)

- "buddy Jesus"
- "Jesus is my homeboy"
- "Soldier Jesus"
- "White Jesus"
- "Black Jesus"
- "Chinese Jesus"
- "Hippie Jesus"
- "Gay Jesus"

While there are varying degrees of seriousness or sincerity, to be sure, all of these images demonstrate people attempting to reconcile Jesus to THEMSELVES. Yes, it's more than a little egocentric. But it's also a completely human endeavor - certainly not anything "new."

I'm not suggesting you're against this sort of stuff, Chris, you're comment just got me thinking about all the wild and wacky ways we dress up Jesus. And all the ways we've probably been doing it since the very beginning: not only with art, but with our very Christology.

Al said...

Peter, your comments on images of Jesus reminded me of the song about 'Plastic Jesus'. http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/plastic0.htm
I think it has a number of images you will enjoy.

Sabio Lantz said...

I hope they legalize it before my kids have to make illegal decisions. Dumb, dumb laws.

Chris said...

Hi Peter,

On using images: I think the Incarnation itself gives us some freedom to depict Christ in art. The very word 'icon' means image and is used of Christ in the NT.

My concern about 'Pot Jesus' is in using someone else's religious imagery in a way they might find offensive. That seems disrespectful to me. The sacred heart imagery doesn't belong to Protestants. I wouldn't alter images of Buddha or a Muslim crescent either. It's a matter of being sensitive and respectful to other people's faith. That was my point. It may not be a huge point, but it's worth thinking about.

Peace to you today.

Peter said...

Good point, Chris. Although I'm aware of the origins, I still viewed it as a broadly Christian image, rather than specifically Roman Catholic. So my usage was catholic, rather than Catholic.

But you're right - I wouldn't misuse an image of Mohammed.

Popular Posts